The Sun. — London, England, 1836-07-08 00:00:00

Nt ), %,"4 lr t bk d BAKEWELL. A public meeting was held at Bakewell, in the north division of the county of Derby, on Tuesday the sth inst., pursuant to a requisition of the inhabitants, for the purpose of considering what steps it would be proper to take in consequence of the recent collision of the two Houses of Parliament on the Irish Municipal Reform Bill. John Williams, Esq., was in the chair ; and a series of resolu tions were proposed by Messrs. Atkinson, Gauntley, Barker of Burre-house, James Barker, Walters, Taylor, Mills. Mellard, &c. &c., which were unanimously carried ; and the following address to the. King, founded upon the resolu tions, was adopted by the meeting ; and a petition to the House of Commons embodying the same sentiments was also agreed to. Prior to the business of the meeting being gone into, Mr. Gisborne, one of the Members for North Derbyshire, happening to be in the neighbourhood, availed himself of the opportunity of stating to the meeting the reasons which had occasioned his absence from Parliament—which were well received by the meeting ; and as the Hon. Gentleman thought it incompatible with the situation he held in the county to take part in the proceedings of the meeting, he withdrew before the resolutions were proposed, and was much cheered as he retired. TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. Sire—We, your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects of the town and neighbourhood of Bakewell in the county of Derby, feeling a strong sympathy with our fellow subjects in Ireland, have seen wifh much regret almost every effort to improve their political condition thwarted by large majorities of the House of Lords. That sympathy is at this time especially de manded, when we see Municipal Corporation Reforms, resem bling those of England and, Wales are refused by those majo rities to our Irish brethren, notwithstanding a Bill to accom plish such an object has twice lately been brought before the House of Lords, sanctioned by large and increasing majorities of the House of Commons ; and notwfthstanding the gracious recommendations of your Majesty at the opening of the pre sent session of Parliament, given in the following words : " You are already in possession of the Report of the Com mission appointed to inquire into the state of the Municipal Corporations in Ireland, and I entertain a hope that it will be in your power to apply to any defects and evils which have been shown to exist in those institutions, a remedy founded upon the same principles as those of the Acts which have been already passed for England and Wales." We cannot too highly estimate the wisdom and forbearance which the House of Commons has shown, and which your Majesty's Ministers have shown, in meeting this opposition, which otherwise might at this time have greatly disturbed the peace of England, and which, if not speedily and effectually counteracted, will, we fear, excite grievous troubles in Ireland. We have taken much pains to acquaint ourselves with the Reasons for this extraordinary opposition on the part of o majority of the House of Lords. We can discover no rea sons worthy of the name, and are therefore constrained to believe, either that the real cause fs not avowed, or that the opposition proceeds from inattention to your Majesty's Recommendation, a disregard to the condition of Ireland, or a disposition to trifle with the valuable time and labours of the People's Representatives in the Commons' House of Parliament. Under these circumstances we are impelled, by sympathy for our Irish brethren, by duty to our representatives in Parlia ment, by gratitude to your Majesty's Ministers, by loyalty to your Majesty, by love for our country, by respect for its insti tutions, by the apprehension of disturbances in your Irish do minions, and by the collision which so unnecessarily exists be tween the other two estates of the realm, and which it is within the scope of your Majesty's Royal prerogative to set at rest,—to implore your Majesty so to exercise your power, in conjunction with the advice of your Ministers, as to remove this unhappy collision, and to confer on Ireland equal laws and privileges with the rest of your Majesty's British subjects. That your Majesty may long enjoy the exalted happines4 of reigning over a loyal, free, prosperous, happy and united people, is the earnest prayer of us, your Majesty's dutiful and faithful subjects. SECOND EDITION. SUN OFFI CE, Seven o' Clock. THE LONDON GAZE FTE THIS EVENING. CAMBRIDGE HOUSE, HANOVER, JUNE 30, 1836. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge has been pleased to appoint William Dallas Bernard, 31. D. Oxon, to be one of the Ph)sicians Extraordinary to his Royal Highness's Household. WA R OFFICE, Jury S. 2d Regiment of Life Guards--To be Lieutenants by purchase— Lieut- T. Naylor, vice Blackburn, who retires, July 7 ; Cornet and Sub-Lieut. W. C. D. li. Vyse, vice Fairlie, who retires. July 8. To be Cornets and Sub-Lieutenants, by purchase : J. K. Wedder burn, Gent., vice Naylor, July 7 ; R. N. Lawley, Gent., vice Vyse. July 8 ; E. M. Earl of Longford, vice Knox, who retires, July 9. Ist Regiment of Dragoon Guards—Ensign R. Hollis, from the 49th Regiment of Foot, to be Cornet, by purchase, vice May, who retires, July 8. 3d Regiment of Dragoon Guards—Lieut. J. D. Dyson, to be Captain, by purchase, vice Bcaurnan, who retires; Cornet F. Watt to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Dyson ; Second Lieutenant C. H. J. Rich, from the 87th Regiment of Foot, to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Watt, July 8. 7th Regiment of Dragoon Guards—Captain J. Bolton to be Major, by purchase, vice Curteis, who retires; Lieut. J. W. Hunter to be Captain, by purchase, vice Bolton; Cornet E. Cottrington to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Hunter ; J. Crofts, Gent., to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Codrington, July 8. 4th Regiment of Light Dragoons—R. Routh, Gent., to be Cor net, by purchase, vice Cornwall, w ho se a pp o i n t men t h as not ta k en place. July 8. 16th Regiment of Light Dragoons—Major W. D. Mercer, from from the 67th Regiment of Foot, to be Major, vice W. H. Sper ling, who retires upon half-pay Unattached, receiving the differ ence; Cornet G. Harriot to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Rose, who retires ; J. P. Smith, Gent. to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Harriott, July 8. Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards--Lieut. and Capt. W. J. Codrington to be Captain and Lieutenant-Colonel, by purchase, vice Glegg, who retires ; Ensign and Lieut. F. Halkett to be Lieu tenant and Captain, by purchase, vice Codrington ; Ho n . L. H ope to be En s i gn and Lieutenant,: by purchase, vice Halkett, July 8. Scots Fusileer Guards—Hon. G. A. Byron, to be Ensign and Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Levinge, whose appointment has not taken place, July 8. 17th Regiment of Foot—Ensign H. L. Herbert, from the 88th t Regiment of Foot, to be Lieutenant, without purchase, vice Tobin, dezt:ased, July 6. 49th Foot--T. P. Gibbons, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice 1101115, appointed to the Ist Dragoon Guards, July 8. 54th Foot—T. Mestyn, Gent., to he Ensign, by purchase, vice Harksharr, who retires, July 8. , 57th Foot—Ensign W. L. Stewart to be Lieutenant, by pur chase, vice Armstrong, who retires ; H. C. Cardew, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Stewart, July 8. 67th Foot—Major W. N. Orange, from the half-pay Unattached, to be Major, paying the difference, vice Mercer, appointed to the 16th Regiment. of Light Dragoons, July 8. 79th Foot—Ensign J. Douglas to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Gore, who retires ; Second Li eu t enan t P. L. McD ouga ll , from the eylon Regiment, to be Ensign, vice Douglas, July 8. 80th Foot—Captain F. Moore, from the half-pay Unattached, to be Captain, vice J. Bowness-, who exchanges, July 8. 87th Foot—J. N. Ouvry, Gent., to be Second Lieutenant, by purchase, vice C. H.J. Rich, appointed to the 3d Dragoon Guards, July 8. 88th Foot—Ensign H. D. P:rsse, from the 99th Regiment of Foot, to be Ensign, vice Hawker, promoted, July 8 ; Gentleman Cadet J. M. Fowler, from the Royal Military College, to be En sign, without purchase, vice Herbert, promoted in the 17th Regi ment of Foot, July 9. 95th Foot—Lieutenant G. Stewart to be Captain, by purchase, vice Whyte, who retires ; Ensign A. T. Heyland to be Lieute nant, by purchase, vice Stevvart ; G. Cornwall, Gent., to be En sign, by purchase, v i ce H ey l an d , J u l y 8. 99th Foot—H. Pardoe, Gent., to be Ensign, by by purchase, vice Persse, appointed to the 88th Regiment of Foot, July 8. Ceylon Rifle Regiment—H. G. Remmett, Gent., to be Second Lieutenant, by purchase,, vice Macdougall, appointed to the 79th Regiment of Foot, July 8. UNATTACHED. Ensign E. A. Hawker, from the 88th Regiment of Foot, to be Lieutenant, by purchase, Jul, 8. BREVET. Major-General Sir J. Colborne, K.C.8., to have the local rank of Lieutenant-General in Upper and Lower Canada, July 8s GARRISONS. Major-General the Hon. Patrick Stuart to be Governor of Edin burgh Castle, during the period he may continue on the Staff in North Britain, July 8. - MEMORANDUM. Lieutenant J. B. Ross, upon half- pay of the Royal African Corps, has been allowed to retire from the Army by the sale of a Lieutenancy, he being about to become a settler in the colonies, July 8. The Christian names of Lieutenant the Honourable Mr. Percy, of the Grenadier Guards, are Henry Hugh Manners. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. SOPHIA SHOWLER, brass-founder, Litchfield -street, New port-market. BANKRUPTS. JOSEPH BOTTOMLEY, fan and sky-light_rnanufacturer, Beech-street, Barbican. JAMES NICHOLL, oil broker, Pope's Head-Alley. THOMAS HARVEY FORRESTER, Russia broker, Baltic Coffee-house, Threadneedle-street. JOHN HALE. maltster, Bromley, Middlesex. JAMES SMITH, f urn ishing ironmonger, Curzon-street, May fair. ROBERT BAGSHAW MANN, linen-draper, Parliament. street, Westminster. ISAAC NIADLEY, innkeeper, Landogo, Monmouthshire. SAMUEL MINSHULL, commission agent, Manchester. THOMAS FLAHERTY, tailor, Bath. HENRY LEMON TAYLOR, harness maker, Highworth, Wiltshire. JAMES RAMSDEN hatter, Bradford, Yorkshire. CO 4 NGE.--(THIS DAY.) Leghorn 4B Genoa .................... .. ........ 25 85 Milan '3l Venice .............. .., 47 Naples Palermo ...per oz. 122 Lisbon 561, Oporto 5 4 Rio .laneiro 36% Bahia 26 Buenos Ayres Dublin, 21 days' sight • ih i Cork IR, PRICE OF BULLION, PER 6Z. Portugal Gold, coin CO 0 0 Foreign Gold, in bars 3 17 9 New Dcmbloons New Dollars . —.— .... Silver, bars, standard 0 5 01,4 • 411". '4 ‘-ip-1;t XI/4.kt 114\ IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT, (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. GREENWICH PIER BILL. On the motion of Mr. ANGERSTEIN the above Bill was read a third time. A clause was proposed to be added by way of rider. Mr. Alderman WOOD complained that it would abolish, those rights of the Lord Mayor which he held as Conser vator of the River. The clause enacted that the in habitants might have power to do certain things, if they had leave from the Admiralty, which could not now be done without the authority and consent of the Lord Mayor. Such an attempt was made about fifty years ago, but then the Admiralty failed in showing that they had any right over the Thames at all. He hoped the clause would be postponed, to give time for some communications with the Admiralty, in order to have the matter settled without the loss of the Bill. Mr. C. WOOD said that the only objection he had to this Bill was that it interfered with the rights of the Ad miralty. The same objection had been made to the Gravesend Pier Bill ; but the parties, to obviate the objec tion, submitted to have a clause inserted in the Bill which preserved the rights of the Admiralty, and he had no ob jection to the present Bill passing if a similar clause were inserted. The only wish which the Admiralty had was, that a clause might be introduced into the Bill to limit the building of the pier in such a way as should be approved of by the Admiralty. Mr. G. F. YOUNG said that nothing could be more just than the insertion of a saving clause to preserve the rights of the Admiralty on navigable rivers, and if this Bill contained any clause that interfered with those rights, it was proper that it should be corrected ; but he must say that there was here a question of conflict ing jurisdiction, and it would be clearly unjust to introduce a clause that would give the Admiralty a power which they did not possess at present. It would be unfortunate at present to interfere with the question of jurisdiction, when a Committee was sitting to consider the subject of the Navi gation of the port oeLondon, when the whole question of jurisdiction must necessarily form part of the enquiry. He concurred with his Hon. Friend (Alderman Wood) that I this Bill gave a power to the Admiralty by taking it from the Corporation, which ought not to be done. Mr. C. WOOD could assure the Hon. Member that there was no such desire on the part of the Admiralty. There was nothing in the clause he proposed to introduce which interfered with the power of the Corporation. After a few observations from Mr. ANGERSTEIN, Mr. BARNARD, and Mr. Ald. WOOD, the further consideration of the clause was postponed till Monday. HUNGERFORD AND LA BETH SUSPEN SION BRIDGE. Mr. HAW ES presented a petition from certain owners and occupiers of houses in Hungerford and Lambeth, pray ing the Committee might be allowed till the 25th of July to make their report on the Hungerford and Lambeth Suspen sion Bridge Bill. An HoN. MEMBER opposed the extension of time. He understood that the great majority of the landed proprietors were opposed to the Bill. Mr. HA WES explained that the promoters of the Bill had been since March last in constant communication with the landed proprietors, who would come to no conclusive agreement with them. He denied, however, that there was any opposition on their part. The opposition origi nated with a Company interested in a rival bridge. He trusted that after the House had sanctioned the second. reading of the Bill, that no objection should now be made to the motion. On the su g gestion of the SPEAKER, the Bill was rc ferred to the Standing Order Committee. On the motion of Mr. VYVYAN, the Swansea Hai bour Bill was read a third time, and some clauses havit2, been added, the Bill was passed. DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY. Mr. O'CONNELL brought up the Report of the Cor mittec on this Bill. SOUTH CEMETERY COMPANY. Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition again this Bill from certain persons in Southwark. IRISH CORPORATION REFORM. Mr. FRENCH presented a petition from Kilbr;de, the county of Roscommon, in favour of the Iris; Municipal Reform Bill, and a petition from Shank lie, and other places in the. same county, statii g that they were grateful for the measure of Municipal Re form granted by this House, and that they considered the - interference of the other branch of the Legislature unjust. The petitions also prayed for the total and unconditional abolition of tithe. HAND-LOOM WEAVERS. - - . Mr. WAKLEY presented a petitionfrom the hand-loom weavers of some place in Scotland, praying for the establish ment of Boards of Works: The Hon. Member also presented petitions from the factory colourers of Stockport, praying for the establishment of a ten hours' Bill for la bourers of all ages, between nine and twenty-one yeaS•s of age. Also three petitions from Suffolk, in favour of the Medical Witnesses' Bill. Major BE AUCLERK presented a petition from Ashtied, in Surrey, against certain portions - of the Poor Laws Bill. He wished to call the attention of his Majesty's Government to the prayer of this petition. The petition prayed that dur ing the present session sonic alteration might be made in the Bill so that the Poor Law Commissioners might have power to apply remedies to the grievances of which they complained. It was his sincere hope that his- Majesty's Government would take this question into their consideration during the recess, and give satisfaction to the p oor p eo pl e o f thi s country. If they did not, he should move th at a Corn• rnittee be appointed next session to take the subject into their consideration. COURSE OF EXCH., Amsterdam C.F. 12 6 Ditto, at sight Rotterdam... ............... U l2 614 AntwerP.- ............ . ... Hamburg. Altana eL _2w... t n.. 1313% parivepailfftßWZ4t••A 25 60 1 1 1 1 .1 ) It t glie t it l ir\ Z 3) Fral - 0 • A 1 ,...44, ru.. 0 116 . 4., ...., ..,.- iqiiii t. 'Acts „ t s: - . , 1 8 11 /, , • - itro l / 4 .. Bar . '. Seri. jlatialdr • . " 4 " r ...................... 48 TITHES. Mr. BRADY presented a petition from Drumbow, praying for the abolition of tithes. TEMPERANCE SOCIETIES. Mr. HODGSON presented a petition from Newcastic on-Tyne, praying for the regulation of Temperance So cieties. DANISH CLAIMS. Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from an in dividual praying for compensation, on the subject of the Danish Claims. DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY. Mr. O'CONNELL moved the further consideration of the Report of the Committee on the Dublin and Drogheda Railway. Mr. - F. SHAW had abstained from taking any part in the discussions upon the Bill in Committee ; but from all he could learn, and from what he had pe rused of the evidence, he had not the least doubt that great public advantage would accrue from the proposed line, and from the consequent introduction of English capital into the country. There was no question between the two lines, nor could there be any doubt as to the great superiority of the coast line. As that was the last opportunity he should have, he felt it his duty to state what his sentiments upon the Bill were. • Mr. C. WOOD made an observation relative to the Board of Admiralty, which we did not hear. Mr. O'CONNELL was satisfied that there would be no objection on the part of the Admiralty ; and besides, they had no jurisdiction over the Dublin Harbour, which was vested in the Ballast Board of Dublin. There was but one opinion relative to the conduct of the Ballast Board of Dublin, and that was, that it had done its duty fairly, impartially, and most usefully.—(Hear.) MORNING SITTINGS. Mr. WALLACE moved thL;ttl;ll;use at its rising do adjourn to Monday at twelve o'clock, to take into consi deration the Poole Corporation Bill. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET had heard no rea son assigned for such a proceeding, and should certainly op pose it. Mr. POULTER, said the object was to take into consideration a case of great injustice, that had been now four months before the House.—(Hear, hear.) The matter was not a grievance of a local nature, but a gross abuse of the Municipal Reform Bill ; and on these grounds he should support the motion of the lion. Member for Greenock. Mr. WYNN did not think there was anything in this Poole Corporation Bill which gave it such importance as that it should supersede ' all Public Bills, and the whole of the business of that House in Committees. Besides, Members of that House were obliged to take food and nourishment the same as other persons, and if the House sat from twelve o'clock to three, and then met again at half-past four, there would not be time for it. They would have to go into a Committee of Supply, in order to vote that dinners be provided in the House for the Mem bers. It was absolutely necessary that the Members should have time for taking food, exercise, and doing other business ;1 the consequence would be that all the business would be transacted in their houses. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to object to the House sitting on Monday morning.—(Hear, hear, hear.) From what he had seen last night, he appre hended there would be great opposition to many of the clauses, and therefore he considered it would be ad visable to have it discussed in a full House, although he should be satisfied with any arrangement the House might come to. Mr. E WART thought that if the House sat at 12 o'clock there would be greater moderation and sobriety— (Hear, hear, and laughter)—of language, and he had observed that during the time of the Morning Sittings Hon. Members had made much shorter speeches. Mr. J. HEATH COTE protested most strongly against this measure being taken if it was to supersede other business. s.. ~+ THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1836. Mr. PR AED considered that from the nature of kh Bill itself, it was most desirable the House should not tail it into consideration before five o'clock. It was a Bet which for the first time established legislative interference with a pending judicial proceeding, and it was therefore most desirable that those Learned Gentlemen who were Members of the House should be present, especially the Law Officers of the Crown. Mr. P. THOMPSON said, that as several Committees had been specially fixed for Monday, there would be great difficulty in making a House, and if the Hon. Member pressed his proposition to a division many Members would vote against it in consequence of these Committees. He suggested, therefore, to the Hon. Member, that if he wished his proposition to have a fair trial he should postpone it to some other day. Mr. WALLACE agreed to postpone his proposition. and the Sheriffs Courts' (Scotland) Bill were then ordered to be read a second time that day six months. COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND). On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE the House went into Committee on the Court of Session (Scotland) Bill, Mr. R. Stewart in the Chair. . After a few observations from Sir W. RAE, the LORD ADVOCATE, and Mr. PRINGLE, clause 1 was agreed to. Clauses 2,3, 4,5, 6, and 7, were also agreed to without any amendment. After a few words from Sir G. CLERK, clauses up to 12 were ordered to stand part of the Bill. On clause 15th being put, Mr. WALLACE hoped that the time was now come When the Judges of the Court of Session would be con fined to their province of expounding the law. It was not seemly that they should usurp the powers of that House, and become law-makers, which they now claimed to be. —(Hear.) He held in his hand an Act of Sederunt by which the Lords of Session actually imposed a tax upon the people of Scotland ; it said that no man could be plaintiff in a cause there unless he had his papers signed by an Advocate, which - at once imposed a fine of I/. Bs. 6d. upon all litigants. As they complained of having too much to do, he hoped they would not in future be allowed to take such an onerous duty upon them.—(Laughter.) Mr. CUTL AR FERGUSSON differed from the opi nion expressed by the Hon. Member for Greenock, relative to the conduct of the Supreme Court of Scotland, nor did he believe that such was the feeling of the people of Scot land generally. The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 16. I On clause 17th being put, Sir. W. RAE moved an amendment, that the new ap pointment of an Extractor-General, with a salary of 5001., and an Assistant, with a salary of 3001., be expunged, and that the Principal Clerks of Session be required to perform that duty on their present salaries. After a short discussion the Committee divided, when the numbers were — For the clause Against it Majority 53 .... 34 . -19 The clause was then agreed to ; as were also clauses 18 to 34, with the exception of clause 26, which was postponed. Mr. GILLON proposed the insertion of a clause for the purpose of preventing Judges of the Court of Session from becoming members of the General Assembly, or from taking part in .any banking or mercantile Company. The LORD ADVOCATE objected to the clause. He thought that if the objections were valid against Judges sitting in the General Assembly in Scotland, it would be equally so in England against Judges sitting in Parliament. —(Hear.) With regard to their taking part in trading Com panies, he thought that public opinion was quite sufficient to restrain that practice within due bounds. As it was, he believed that at present there was only one Judge in such a position, and that was solely in an honorary capacity as Deputy Governor of the Bank. Mr. C. FERGUSSON also opposed the clause. After a few words from Mr. A. JOHNSTON, Mr. GILLON withdrew his motion. ~.....__ _ The schedules of the Bill were then agreed to, and the House resumed. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. The LORD ADVOCATE, as we understood, was then rising to move the Order of the Day on another of his Bills,-when Mr. POULTER interposed to move the Order of the Day for for going into Cominittee on the Poole Corporation Bill. _ . Sir G. CLERK objected to going into the consideration of that Bill at the present moment, as he had understood that it was agreed that the Bills relating to Scotland should that evening have a precedence. Mr. POULTER said that the Noble Lord the Secre tary for the Home Department had told him, that as soon as the Bills which stood in the paper before that which he intended to bring on (the Poole Corporation Bill) were disposed of, his Bill should then be taken into considera tion. He could not help thinking that it was somewhat inconsistent with the extreme anxiety expressed by the Hon. Members opposite to have the Scotch Bills proceeded with that they should have endeavoured to put an end to all the business before the House by moving that the House be counted.—(Hear, hear.) Sir E. KNATCIIBULL observed, that it might be quite true that a Member at that side of the House made a motion for adjournment, but lie considered it unfair that the act of a Member, whom he for one did not know, should be made the ground of a general imputation against those at that side of the House.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. E. J. STANLEY understood the arrangement to be, that after the two Scotch Bills which stood before his Ho nourable Friend's (Mr. Poulter's) motion had been gone through, they should proceed with the Poole Corporation Bill. That was the way in' which he thought the arrange ment was understood by the.House.—(Hear, and cries of " No" from the Opposition.) The LORD ADVOCATE expressed his willingness to abide by the decision of the House. Mr. C. FERGUSSON was under the impression that the Scotch Bills were that night to be disposed of. Mr. C. WYNN was of opinion that it was competent to the Government to allow an Hon. Member to proceed with any measure which they were disposed to favour ; but what lie complained of in this case was, that an imititation should be given to the House that one measure was to be brought on whilst, upon a private arrangement, it was now sought to give another measure precedence. After a few words from Mr. J. JERVIS and Mr. GOULBURN, Mr. WAK LEY said, that he could bear testimony to the fact, that the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department stated that when the two first Scotch Bills had been disposed of, his Hon. Friend's (Mr. Poulter's) Bill should be brought on. Mr. GILLON thought the Lord Advocate was bound to persevere in bringing the Scotch Bills under the conside ration of the House. Sir W. RAE moved, as an amendment, the further con sideration of the report on the Small Debts (Scotland) Bill. The House then divided— , For the original motion For the amendment 32 Majority in favour of the original motion —ll A discussion with closed doors then took place, and the House again divided on another motion to the same effect, when the numbers were— For the amendment • 57 Against it _ 33 . • w Majority in favour of the amendment -24 SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. On our return to the gallery, we found the House in a Committee on the Small Debts (Scotland) Bill. The several clauses of the Bill having been agreed to, it was ordered to be reported on Monday next. • The second reading of the Court of Session Audits' (Scotland) Bill was put off for six months. POOLE CORPORATION BILL. The House resolved itself into Committee on this Bill. Mr. FORBES was opposed to the principle, as well as the details of this Bill. The latter, he conceived, would operate in a most unjust and arbitrary manner. If such provisions were necessary to correct any general defect in municipal institutions, they ought to have been introduced into the Municipal Act Amendment Bill. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the first clause be expunged. Mr. A. TREVOR seconded the motion. He conceived it to be most unjust that the House should attempt to deal with the matter, in the way proposed in this Bill whilst the question was undergoing discussion before a different tri bunal. Mr. BLACKBURN supported the clause, and defended the Bill. If it had been shown that the grievance could have been removed by a court of law heshould have thought the Bill unnecessary, but this was not all the case. Mr. WYNN objected both to the Bill itself, and to the manner in which th e C omm i ttee h a d con d ucte d it se lf. Th e proceedings of the Committee had been most arbitrary and violent, and cont rar y t o a ll th e ru l es o f t h e H ouse , a s to the receipt of evide nce . Th e Bill cou ld not poss ibly be carried through this session, for if it reached the House of Lords that assembly could not refuse to hear evidence against the Bill, and this would be quite sufficient in itself to prevent the Bill being passed this session. This was a Bill of pains and penalties, and most unjust towards towards the parties, who had a full and manifest right to have the case tried in a court of law. It was a Bill which, for an alleged informality as - to the election of two individual members of a town-council, set aside the election of the whole, all their elections, and all their acts. The election of the present Speaker was carried by ten votes ; if it had been shown that five out of these ten voters s a t b y an i n f orma l e l ect i on , wa s it to be said that thereby th e w h o l e procee di ngs o f th e House in that respect as well as in others was to be set aside.—(Hear, hear.) The report of the Committee stated that the par ties had had recourse to every step by w hich they could obtain redress. He (Mr. Wynn) could not find one syl lable of evidence in the report to prove that the petitioners had done so. The case would be tried in the course of a fortnight, and it wou ld b e very i nconve nient to have tw o jurisdictions concurrently exercised upon it. The Hon. Member then alluded to the Yarmouth and Ipswich cases as proofs that the recommendations of Committees of the House were not always in these cases to be implicitly re• lied upon, for in both these cases juries had refused to sanction the prosecutions recommended by the Committees. The Hon. Member observed that, although the Committee had, contrary to all rule, taken the affidavits of the peti tioners as evidence, they had carefully abstained from an nexing them to the report, knowing that with such ap pendages the House could not have received the report. The Hon. Member concluded by calling upon the House, as the Bill could not pass this session, not to discuss the particular question respecting the two individuals, as the discussion might have an influence upon the jury, who would he called upon to decide upon it in livcouise of a fortnight. Before he sat down the Right Hon. Gehtleman referred to an opinion on the subject which had been given by the Solicitor-General, and which deprecated the inter ference of the Legislature with the judicial functions of the Court. Mr. POULTER said a greater quantity of misconcep tion, of unfair and inaccurate reasoning, was never before presented to the consideration of the House than was brought before it by the Right Hon. Gentleman. There had been such a mass of unreasonable arguments, that he really was in a dilemma as to what he should begin with.— (Opposition cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") In the first place he would refer to the allusion which had been made to the speech of the Solicitor-General, and here he must say that he did not know where the Right Hon. Gentle man bad got the speech, but it was certainly an inaccurate version that he gave the House. The Solicitor-General admitted that it was a perfect case for legislation. The fact was undeniable that gross fraud had been practised at the election of the c ouncillors, who had been referred to. The reason why they had not called' the eighty-eight wit nesses was because the Committee wished to avoid ex pense, but no limit was set as to the time when they might be called. Then, as regarded the affidavits not appearing in the appendix, that omission was an error of the printer. The great recommendation of this Bill was, that it provided what the law of the country could not give. If this Bill did not pass, the people would be left for six years in the hands of those in whose election they had no concern whatever. The Committee had so many gross cases of fraud proved to them, that they felt themselves called on to declare the whole election void. And on the subject of the Report, he begged to remind the House that it was unanimous. The utmost that was said by one or two of the Committee was, that they did not like to le gislate on this subject. The House should consider that, by a gross falsification, a Corporation had been established that never had been elected by the people. He contended that this Bill was unobjectionable on any Constitutional ground. Mr. WYNN would ask if any one act of illegality ap peared on the face of the Report ? Mr. POULTER referred to the case of G. Morris, Who, having voted on one paper, a second was received by the Mayor. Then there was another person whose name was not on the list of voters, but who was allowed to vote because he had the impudence to say that he was the per son. James Parker was brought to personate his father. In the case of another there was perjury. An HoN. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, asked the Hon. Member if he could say, from the evi dence, that it was clear what the decision of the Jury would be? Mr. POHL TER said it was impossible there could be any verdict but against the defendant:—(Opposition cries of " Hear," re•echoed by the Ministerial benches.) Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN said every body who had heard the statement of the Hon. , Gentleman must feel as sured as to the impartiality with which he had acted in the chair of the Committee. Of course the Hon. Gentleman had not exhibited anything of the advocate in the inquiry which had taken place. He found it stated that the re port had been framed on certain affidavits. Now he thought it unfair for any such proceedings to be founded on affidavits—( Hear)—when there was strong political ex citement or feeling, parties were often tempted to put that on paper which they would not say if they apprehended cross-examination.—Jlear.) He remembered that Lord Lyndhurst when at the bar said, " Who shall transfer the blush of bribery to paper ?" He observed that there was a reference to the affidavits in the appendix, but on exa mining it, he found no affidavits there. This the Hon. Gentleman said was the omision of the printer, but be the fault whose it might, he would ask the House, would they vote away the rights of the people without evidence ? He regretted the absence of the Learned Solicitor-General, be cause he wished to know whether the Hon. and Learned Gentleman maintained his opinion. This appeared to him to be a Bill founded on injustice. He called on the House to reflect on what their position would be if the judgment of the Court, at the assizes, would be in direct opposition to the opinion of this House. Mr. LEADER defended the conduct of the Committee, and denied that the Chairman had put questions unfairly to any of the witnesses. The Committee, was a very fair one, and was attended daily by three or four gentlemen on one side, and three or four on the other side. Mr. HARDY was opposed to legislative interference be fore the verdict of the jury. Mr. HORACE TWISS opposed the clause, and said that if it had been the object of those who brought for ward the Bill to do justice between the parties, they would have made it conditional that it should be in force if the jury found the parties guilty. In that case he could have seen common sense in it, but by declaring the election in valid before the trial, or an inquiry into the question, there were neither sense nor justice in the measure. He would not enter into speculation as to what the course of pro ceeding might be in another place, but he had no doubt that in the other House of Parliament it would be found expedient to examine witnesses at length before any con clusion was arrived at. Evidence upon affidavits, or docu mentary evidence, would not be deemed sufficient there. Mr. PRAED understood that the Solicitor-General, on , a former occasion, had declared it to be his opinion that al though this was a case requiring the interference of the Legislature, yet the interference now proposed was perma- ture. He agreed with the Solicitor-General in that opi nion : and why ? Because the matter was still pending in a court of law. He regretted that the Solicitor-General was not now in his place, because if he were, and were to repeat the opinion he had before expressed, there was not, he (Mr. Praed) verily believed, a single individual present who would vote for further progress of this Bill now. If such matters as this were delegated to a Committee of the House of Commons, what was it they did? They referred an investigation to a body of men who were not upon their oaths, and whose Chairman was not learned in the law, in stead of referring it to a jury who were on their oaths, and who would have the aid of one of the judges of the land to assist them in their decision. What had occurred in the Yarmouth case ? The jury there found a verdict directly contrary to the decision of the Committee of the House of Commons. If the House were to be called upon to set aside this election, the consequence would be that the ordi nary tribunals of the country would be superseded, and every municipal election would become the subject of a Parliamentary investigation. The Committee then divided, when the numbers were— For the clause 9B Against it 64 Majority —34 The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill. A discussion ensued while strangers were absent from the gallery, in the course of which Mr. WYNN was under stood to move that the Chairman should leave the chair, and report progress. On our return to the Gallery, we 'found Mr. E. J. STANLEY objecting to any postponement, as the prin ciple of the Bill had been decided upon by a division on the first clause. Mr. WYNN said that a different principle was involved in the second clause. Mr. PRAED said that he should persist in dividing the Committee on the motion that the Chairman should report progress. After some conversation the motion was agreed to, the Chairman reported progress, and the House resumed. The,other Orders of Day having been read and dis posed of, the House adjourned at Half-past One o'Clock. ROUSE OF LORDS, JULY 7. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack at Five o'clock. The Earl of MANSFIELD presented a petition from the Presbytery of Dumblane against the Scottish Universi- ties Bill, and one from Truro, praying their Lordships to resist any attempt made to impair their independence. The Duke of RICHMOND presented several petitions in favour of Stephenson's line of the Brighton railway, from places in Sussex. The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition from a portion of the Clergy of Ireland, praying that the Church might have power to nominate Commissioners to collect and appropriate the funds belonging to the Church. The Marquis of WESTMEATH thought the petition, though highly respectable, could not he considered by the House ; for it was the law now that Tithes should be col lected, but it was well known that it was put as;de. The petitioners did not suggest any measures by which they could be collected. A Message from the House of Commons, by Mr. M. Philips and others, brought up several Naturalization Bills. Lord WYNFORD presented a report of the evidence taken before the Agricultural Committee.—Ordered to be printed. The NOBLE LORD also presented several petitions from labourers of different counties, complaining of the working of the Poor Law system. SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES BILL. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the Synod and University of King's College, Aberdeen, against this 8111. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the House do at its rising adjourn to Monday.—Agreed to. EXPORTATION OF WOOL. Mr. G. HEATHCOTE wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, in reference to the very considerable exporta tion of wool from the country. It amounted annually to five millions of pounds. The state of the trade (LEFT SPEAKING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The House was engaged till half-past five o'clock in hearing Counsel upon the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill. The further hearing of the matter was postponed till Wed nesday at ten o'clock. The Counsel opposing the Bill applied that the House should send a message to the Commons, asking that the Attorney-General might have leave to attend and give evi dence at the bar. The Swansea Harbour Murderers' Execution and other Bills were brought up from the Commons. Mr. WILKS and others brought up a message re questing their Lordships to strike out a clause in the Marriage Act which had been retained in the Bill, though it had been ordered to be struck out. Lord MELBOURNE cited a case in 1797, and one in 1823, of a similar nature. He thought the proper course would be to expunge the proviso, and have it printed without it, and communicate that to the Commons. Lcrd ELLENBOROUGH thought that it would be a bad precedent for them to interfere with the Bill. Lord H ATHERTON thought the proposition of the Noble Viscount was the proper one for adoption. Earl SHAFTESBURY said the more proper course would be for the Commons to ask that the Bill be sent ack again. After a short conversation between several Noble Lords, Lord MELBOURNE moved that the proceedings already had, on the Marriage Bill, be annulled—that the proviso alluded to be struck out. The motions were agreed to, and the Bill wa§ again read a first time. The Marquis of WESTMEATH moved for a copy of a petition which had been presented to the Crown, through- the Secretary of State for the Home Department, relative to the Church patronage, which was now vested in the Crown, the former possessors of it having been Roman Catholics. There was much of the patronage in Ireland in the hands of the Crown, it having been named trustee of the persons who could not nominate to the livings. The descendants of the former possessors were in many cases Protestants, and according to the Act the livings should now be restored. The petitioners had been led to expect that they would have had an answer before this time, but it appeared as if they were not to get one. It was for the honour of the Crown that the matter shall he inquired into, and he hoped the Noble Lord at the head of the Government would take steps for its immediate ~ettlement Lord ELLENBOROUGH did not think the matter •ested either with the Crown or with the Secretary of •tate. If the persons who signed the petition thought !ley had a case of hardship to show, it was their duty to iy it before the Legislature—they ought to bring in a )ill and endeavour to pass it. (LEFT SPEAKING.) IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 7. BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL. In answer to a question from Sir G. CLERK, The LORD ADVOCATE said it was not. his intention to proceed with the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill. That Bill The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Mr. M. PHILIPS brought up the Report of the Com mittees on three Naturalization Bills. Mr. MORRISON presented a petition from Studeley and another place, praying for the abolition of the Church Rates. Mr. WILKS presented a petition from the Governor of Tottenham Workhouse, a most respectable man, in which he stated that he was fur many years the renter of the suttling houses at the Horse-Guards and Tilbury Fort, for which he paid a rent of 300/., which went to the general funds of the Government. He understood that in all other places the Commanding Officers were the renters of the suttling houses ; and he prayed that all funds arising from such a source should be paid into the general funds of the country. _ _ _ Mr. R. SMITH presented petitions from parishes in Buckinghamshire, praying for the abolition of capital pu nishment. Mr. EWART presented a petition from Stockport, praying for a removal of the restrictions affecting the beer trade. Lord HENIKER presented a petition from a place in Suffolk, praying for a revision of the Poor -Laws Amend ment. Act. SCOTCH CORPORATIONS Captain GORDON presented a petition from Peter head against the Bill for the regulation of Municipal Cor porations in Scotland. RAIL ROADS. Mr. BAINES wished to know whether it was the in tention of the Hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Morrison) to proceed this Session with his Bill for the periodical revi sion of the tolls upon railways. There was a strong im pression out of the House that this was a very ex traordinary interference with property, and he therefore wished to know whether it was the intention of the Hon. Metither to proceed with his Bill, feeling as he must feel, that the Bill was not approved of either in the House or out of the House. Mr. MORRISON had no hesitation in saying that it was his present intention to proceed with his Bill to the second reading. He would, however, move that the second reading be pOstponed till Monday, in order to give Hon. Members, whose constitu ents felt an anxiety on the subject, an opportunity of con sulting them. If he thought that his Bill could not be passed this Session, he would withdraw it—(Cries of " No, no,")—but he knew that it was the wish of a great number or persons in th e H ouse , an d ou t o f it, that this Bill should pass. One part of this Bill was much misunder stood, and he had been asked by some friends whether it was his intention to introduce a Bill to the effect, that tolls on rail-roads should hereafter be altogether abolished. Now, the word " Abolition" occurred in the Bill, but it was by no means necessary, and he had not the slightest objection to strike out the word. It was cer tainly not his intention that persons who engaged in great public undertakings should not be remunerated—it wag, in his opinion, the duty of the House to encourage persons who engaged in works of this kind, and his Bill would not have the effect of discouraging—if it had, he would be very reluctant to proceed with it ; but he was very sure it would have a con trary effect, and he was equally sure that no persons ought to feel more interested in the Bill than the proprietors of railroads themselves. The Hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be postponed till Monday.—Agreed to. Lord JOHN RUSSELL believed the Hon. Gentle tleman who had charge of the Poole Corporation Bill was anxious to bring it on to-night, and as far as he was concerned he did not object to the Hon. Gentleman bring ing it on after 5 o'clock. Sir G. CLERK believed there were no less than six Bills before the House most material to the people of Scotland. He had waited patiently during the whole of the session for some opportunity of discussing those Bills. The first of them was of very great importance, relating to the com merce of Scotland, namely, the Bankruptcy Estates (Scot land) Bill, which had been brought in by the Lord Advocate on the 25th of February, and from that day to this there had not been an opportunity afforded of discussing a single provision of the Bill. The dropped orders were then read through, for the pur pose of being discharged. WRITS OF REBELLION. Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN complained that a person named Conway, who had been taken up on a writ of, rebellion for non-payment of tithes, and confined in Limerick gaol for a month, had been compelled to break stones, and bad been treated as a felon. He had been subsequently sent up to Dublin, and the Barons of the Exchequer decided that he had, been illegally confined.—(Hear.) Conway had not been in possession of the farm for the pre vious two year:, and there was a dispute about the amount of tithes due. Under all these circumstances, he begged to ask the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland whether under existing laws tithe defaulters, who were always sim ply considered debtors, were to be treated as felons and criminals ; and if not, whether any investigation into the matter had been directed by the Government ? Lord MORPETH was understood to say that he had received no official information upon the matter. COURTS OF REQUESTS. The Marquis of. WESTMINSTER presented a peti tion from 9( , 0 inhabitants of Westminster, pitying for the introduction of a Bill for the better regulation of Courts of Request. CHURCH RATES. Lord HOLLAND presented petitions from the Pro teqant of Stowtnarlct, Cambridge, auct ct c:r places, against Church Rates. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. Lord WYN FORD presented petitions from agrioul- turists in the neighbourhood of Durham, complaining o f agricultural distress, and stating that they would be utterly ruined unless some speedy remedy were interposed. HORSE PATROL BILL. This Bill went through a Committee. RAILWAYS---LLOCOMOTIVE ENGINES. The Duke - of 'RICHMOND brought up the Report of the Committee appointed to enquire whether any danger was likely to arise from locomotive engines passing through towns. The Committee stated that whatever difference existed among the witnesses as to the extent of dagger, the Committee were satisfied that unless due precaution was systematically adopted, the danger would be considerable, not only in passing through towns, among crowded houses, but also with respect to plantations,cornfields, &c. It did not appear to the Committee that any plan had as yet been devised that could be considered as completely effectual, and at the same time not injurious to the operation of the engines. The Committee were not, therefore, prepared to recommend a legislative enforcement of any plan for that purpose ; but they considered that if the Companies were made liable for any damage that might be done, the interests of the Company would lead them to be cautious. The Noble Duke moved that the Report be printed. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. The LORD CHANCELLOR, on the application of Lord Lyndhurst, postponed the second reading of this Bill till Monday next. PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL. At the request of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, Lord LYND HURST postponed the bringing up of the Report on this Bill till Monday next. CHANCERY BILL. Lord PLUNKETT gave notice that he would move the second reading of this Bill on Monday next. MANCHESTER AND CHESHIRE RAILWAY. On the motion of the Earl of WHARNCLIFFE, this Bill was read a second time. JUSTICIARY COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, this Bill was read a second time. DIOCESE OF DURHAM BILL. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY gave notice, that on Thursday he should present a petition from 130 Clergy men of this Diocese, respecting this Bill, and at the same time move that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed until next Session. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a peti tion from Aberdeen, against the Scotch Universities Bill. THE ENGLISH TITHE BILL. The Marquis of LANSDO WNE rose for the purpose of moving the second reading of the BilLfor the Commuta tion of Tithes in England and Wales fa Bill which, he would venture to say, was inferior in importance, with re- • ference to the domestic government of the country, only to that great measure to which the Houselad given its as sent about two years ago, and the benefits of which were now beginning to be felt, by doing away with that great accumulation of abuses under the name of Poor Laws, which had almost taken deep root in the country. By the course, however, which had been adopted, that great check on the industry and morality of the country had been removed. He had said that this Bill was only inferior in impor tance to that great measure which he had alluded to, but, important as it was, some measure of the kind had become absolutely necessary. He required all the atten tion their Lordships could afford to him to be able to succeed in explaining the principle and detail of the mea sure before them. He felt, however, that it was not neces sary for him, on that occasion, to go into any lengthened description as to the antiquity and origin of that particular description of property to which the Bill related, and which some persons asserted had been founded ages long anterior to Christianity, but which, at any rate, had existed from the earliest dawn of Christianity in every country in Europe. Nor did he intend to trace the progress of this description of property in different parts of the civilised world, nor the means—not always the best. and most proper —that different people at various times had resorted to to relieve themselves from the burden which it imposed on them. This country confirmed the remark that had for merly been made with reference to other nations, as regar ded the collection of this species of property, that although it might be liable to few objections in the early times, that since the great improvements that had been made in modern ages, since the great ingenuity - that had been applied to the cultivation of land, since capital , had been so extensively applied to it, the system became more and more objection able—it became more and more liable to the objection, that it checked and diverted capital from employment in agri culture, and that it tended to prevent that free develop ment of industry in which the prosperity of every country was so much mixed up. In this country various individuals had availed themselves of the opportunity—sometimes under the sanction of the law, and sometimes by other means--sof adopting steps to guard landed property, against having this burden imposed on it. To what extent this had been done it was impossible for him to state,- nor should he endeavour to make any calculation on the sub ject ; suffice it to soy, that in any Bill which was intro duced for the remedy of the evils of the tithe system, of which they heard so many complaints, it would be neces sary to' make provision to guard that property which in any way had been freed from the operation of that which ap plied to the great mass of property in the country, namely, the payment of tithes sometimes in kind, and sometimes in the shape of composition. He should not refer to the attempts that had been made in other parts of the world to alter the vexatious nature of this description of pro perty, nor should he attempt to describe the remedies , which he thought should properly have been applied. Ile might, however, in as few words as possible, attempt to detail the different steps that bad been taken in attempting to attain the object in view. If Noble Lords were of opinion that it was practicable to effect a change in this species of property which was affected by so many peculiar circumstances, grafted on it by various events, by the application of one uniform principle to all the different kinds of property of this nature—if Noble Lords enter tained such a hope or expectation, they must be disappoint ed. It was not in the nature of things, when there were so many interests mired up, where the habits and feedings, • and the prejudices, and the good and bad inducements of so many persons had been so long involved, that it was possi ble to legislate on one uniform principle with perfect justice to all. Their hope would be disappointed if they expected to attain this great good by the adoption of one principle, sound in itself and beneficial for the security of property. It was in conformity with the feelings which he had at tempted to describe that the present measure was proposed. He would now merely attempt to explain as shortly as pos sible the various clauses of the Bill. The first clauses, about twelve in number, of this Bill, as the Noble Lords would find, applied to that which was necessarily the foundation of what was intended to work out the measure—he meant the appointment of Commissioners. It was proposed that of the Commissioners to be appointed, two of the number should be named by the Government—that was, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department—and one should be . named by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that all these Commissioners, should be removable at pleasure. The Commissioners were authorised to appoint Assistant-Cona missioners ; he stated that at the outset. When these Commissioners were appointed, the first object the Bill contemplated was, that as much of the change as possible should be effected by voluntary commutation. Tlie Bill afforded every facility to parties voluntarily disposed to act according to the principles of the Bill, and to effect a sa tisfactory arrangement between themselves. It was pro posed, therefore, that in every parish, any one or more of the landowners, or titheowners, whose interest shall not be less than one-fourth part of the whole value of the lands subject to tithes; or one-fourth part of the whole value of the tithes of any parish, may call a parochial meet ing of landowners and tithcowners within the limits of • the parish, for the purpose of making an agreement for the general commutation of tithes within the limits of such parish. This first step being taken, the meeting being called, the landowners and the titheowners respec tively, whose interest; in the land and tithes of the parish shall not be less than two-thirds of the land, subject to tithes, and two-thirds of the great and two-thirds of the small tithes of the parish, would be invited to see whe- • ther they cannot come to an agreement to fix the amount of tithes, and for the payment of an annual sum by way • of rent-charge for the future, in lieu of the payment of tithes. Supposing this to be effected, it would only require the sanction of the Commissioners to make a permanent settlement. When engaged in making a permanent settle - - ment, and when the amount proposed is agreed on, there ma y arise, and arise justly, reasons why the specific amount thus stated should be waived, and be settled again by the Commissioners. After, then, the sum to he paid has been a greed upon by three-fourths of the 'tithe-owners and the tithe-payers, it would be for the tithe-payers to meet and settle in what proportion each individual must con tribute to the amount determined on to be paid by the whole of the parishioners. So far they proceeded when there was pothing but a voluntary agreement. But cases might and would occur in which the landowners and the titheowners agreed as to the amount to be paid by the whole of the parishioners, but they might not be able to agree as to the specific amount to be paid by each tithe payer. The Bill made provisions for this, and directed the 'appointment of valuers for the purpose. It was proposed that the valuers, through whom this apportionment was to be made, were to be nominated thus : half of the num ber of valuers in a parish to be chosen by a majority of the tithe-payers in respect of number, and 'the other half by a majority in respect of interest of such landowners then present. Supposing, however, that after a period of three months no such valuers are appointed, the compulsory part of the Bill would come into operation. iS wiglit I 1 , . ,z., possi!)!:' sonic Noble Lords might think that this period of three months was too short a space of time, and indeed he rather entertained this opinion himself ; he should have no , objet'